I get why you would think this but honestly I don't agree with it. I think these parents would benefit from nutrition classes and about portions. Some parents don't have the funds to feed their kids healthy food. A lot of low income families have to feed their kids junk because that's all they can afford. Maybe we should look at what foods foodstamps provide for families. Also even if the kids parents are trying to feed their kids right kids sneak food, eat junk while at friends houses or at school etc. i know a lot of a child's food habits come from their parents but kids do what they want and if they want junk they will find a way to get it.

I understand your argument and it's a fair one to make, however, you're ignoring two important factors of a healthy lifestyle: portion control and exercise. One does not get morbidly obese just by eating unhealthy; neglecting all forms of exercise and eating an obscene amount of food are 2/3rds of the current epidemic we see.

Arguing that poverty is directly/solely responsible for obesity is unfounded.

EDIT: Proof that you can literally eat McDonalds everyday and still be in peak physical shape can be found by googling: Chad OchoCinco

I'm not saying this as a way to completely exculpate parents from the responsible raising of their children, but the fact that they have fat kids isn't always solely the result of them shoving quarter pounders down their kids' throats. We like to think that biology and reality are so simple, but they're not, and there are many interactions that can lead to childhood obesity, or any other problem for that matter. If we're going to pay attention to the parental role in the problems of children, then we should at least give the same consideration to societal factors as well.

Additionally, one could argue that simply removing children from their families carries the potential to be more dangerous than growing up fat. I don't know how informed you are on the way the foster system works, but it's not entirely without it's own problems. Fucking with the attachment paradigm of young humans isn't something to be undertaken lightly.

TL;DR: Because the parents of morbidly obese children obviously hate them and want to fuck them over. Not to mention that, in an age where a double cheeseburger from McDonald's costs a fucking dollar, sometimes greens from Whole Foods simply aren't an option. There certainly aren't institutionalized reasons for the obesity problem; it's entirely the result of poor life choices.

Interesting view. But on a technical note there is no bottom text part of your meme/advice animal which is the standard format. You could have the part from "should" be at the bottom.

Regarding your view, I think the first step is first to have nutrition and lifestyle classes assigned to the parents. Demonstrate how to eat and live healthy with the same budget (important, since fast food or junk processed foods are/seem cheaper). If the parents does not show improvement after a while then more drastic steps can be taken.

Then under some governments the fast food and processed foods are cheaper due to subsidies (corn subsidies in US leads to HFCS being stupendously cheap). In South Africa, despite all our other social ills, we have no sales tax on unprocessed meat, vegetables and staple starches like fortified (vitamin & mineral enriched by law) maize meal (known as pap, a staple porridge that is on the same cultural level as rice is in Asia). Unproccesed foods are also a lot cheaper genarally for the less labour and expense on it. For example:
You can go now to a big local grocery chain (Fruit and Veg City) and buy a fruit combo for US$5 that contains a tub (about 50oz) of nectarines, a tub of peaches, a punnet (about 16oz) of white grapes and a punnet of apricots. For the same US$5 you can buy about 400g (two extra large slabs) of chocolate. Which is the better sweet snack?